Image via Wikipedia

The cancellation of the ABC drama “Brothers and Sisters” is bound to lead to some tears from viewers who loved the series about the terminally unhealthy and wildly entertaining Walker family.

Count me out.

Actually, I was counted out during this season, a former regular viewer who only occasionally checked in to see what was going on with Nora, Kitty, Kevin, Justin, Sarah and the gang.

My last visit a few episodes ago reminded me how much I missed. Or didn’t miss.

I hadn’t realized that Sarah (Rachel Griffiths) was the product of a romance between Nora (Sally Field) and an old flame (played by Beau Bridges). In other words, Sarah wasn’t William Walker’s daughter.

I laughed and immediately changed the channel. After all, Nora had the high moral ground for most of the series because her husband William (played by Tom Skerritt) had a long-time affair that briefly had viewers thinking he had a love child with Holly Harper (Patricia Wettig).

The child, Rebecca (Emily VanCamp, see above), eventually was proven not to be his, so she got romantically with Justin, who no longer was her brother.

Got that?

Truth be told, VanCamp’s departure from the series was a partial inspiration for me leaving it this season. I’ve been a big fan since she starred in “Everwood” and am happy to see she is starring in a new ABC fall series, “Revenge,” set in the Hamptons.

In any event, finding out that Sarah was a love child was it for me and perhaps for ABC. It was time for “Brothers and Sisters” to go to cancellation heaven.

And then the Arnold Schwarzenegger love child story came to light, illustrating that real life can be as strange or even stranger than fiction.

Even with all the potential material the Schwarzenegger story could have provided, I’m a former fan who is not sorry to see “Brothers & Sisters” go.

* Speaking of cancellations, give credit to CBS for ending the crappy comedy with the strange title that starred William Shatner and the foolish comic law series, “The Defenders” with James Belushi and Jerry O’Connell. It’s a smart network that cuts it losses.

NBC has never been accused recently of being smart, but also was wise to end “Law & Order: Los Angeles” after giving it two tries to find an audience. I did get a laugh when my former colleague and “Law & Order: Los Angeles” supporter Jeff Simon seemed to partially blame the musical theme for its failure. But I thought his column on Channel 4’s “Wingin It!” was much funnier.

Of course, Jeff and I rarely agreed on much of anything when I also worked at The News, which I always believed was a good thing for readers.

So it probably shouldn’t surprise you to learn that I think replacing Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher on “Two and a Half Men” could turn out to be a good thing.

It all depends on the role that writer-producer Chuck Lorre creates for Kutcher, one of the more likable actors on TV who parlayed his success on “That ‘70s Show” into a movie career while becoming a highly successful TV producer. In short, Kutcher’s a lot smarter than he looks. Or plays.

Predicting how Kutcher will do without knowing the concept of his character is a little like predicting how a NFL quarterback drafted in the first round will do without knowing what offensive scheme he will be asked to run.

Kutcher is younger than Sheen and has a younger fan base, so that could also help “Men” get stronger demographics.

Of course, I’m not in that demo. I don’t really care if Kutcher does well or not. I’ve never been a fan of the oversexed “Two and a Half” anyway despite its enormous popularity. Even if George Clooney took Sheen’s place (and that would be a better casting choice even if it would never happen), I wouldn’t watch “Men.”

pergament@msn.com

Be Sociable, Share!

•